Anticipatory bail in alleged fake Input Tax Credit fraud refused where custodial interrogation was found necessary.

Anticipatory bail in an alleged fake Input Tax Credit fraud case was declined because the investigation was still ongoing and the material suggested fake invoices, non-existent suppliers, and transactions requiring further verification. The Court considered that the genuineness of the suppliers and the movement of goods had not yet been established, and that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the alleged fraudulent activity. On that basis, pre-arrest protection was found unwarranted and anticipatory bail was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit under summons issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The applicants were summoned under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in connection with alleged fake invoices and non-existent suppliers. The material placed before the Court indicated that investigation was continuing, that the alleged transactions involved substantial amounts, and that the genuineness of the suppliers and movement of goods required further verification. In these circumstances, the Court found that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the alleged fraudulent activity and that pre-arrest protection was not warranted.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was refused.

---